Executive Summary

This analysis examines nutrition education practices across 55 dental schools worldwide after removing duplicate entries. The survey reveals significant insights into current integration methods, teaching approaches, research activities, and regional variations in nutrition education delivery within dental curricula.

Metric Value
Participating Schools 55
Integration Rate 61%
Average Hours 25
Collaboration Interest 91%
Research Activity 60%

1. Global Analysis (All 55 Schools)

1.1 Curriculum Structure & Content

Q2: Integration Methods

Integration Method Count Percentage (%)
Integrated throughout multiple courses 33 61
Standalone nutrition course 8 15
Not formally included 7 13
Both standalone and integrated approaches 6 11

Key Finding

61% of schools integrate nutrition throughout multiple courses, representing the most popular approach. Only 13% of schools do not formally include nutrition education.

Q3:Hours Distribution

Global: Nutrition Education Hours Statistics
Statistic Value
Count 45
Mean 26
Median 15
Min 2
Max 150
Q1 10
Q3 34
SD 28

## Q4: Academic Years When Nutrition Education is Provided

Global: Academic Years When Nutrition Education is Provided
Academic Year Count Percentage of Schools (%)
Second year 37 67.3
Third year 35 63.6
First year 29 52.7
Fourth year 17 30.9
Fifth year 5 9.1
Sixth year 4 7.3

Key Finding

Second year (67.3%) and Third year (63.6%) are the most common years for nutrition education delivery, with many schools providing education across multiple years of the curriculum.

Q5: Detailed Curriculum Topic Coverage

Global: Detailed Curriculum Topic Coverage Analysis
Nutrition Topic Coverage (%) Quality Level
Diet and dental caries 98 Excellent
Dental erosion and eating disorders 92 Excellent
Basic nutrition principles and metabolism 91 Excellent
Public health nutrition 91 Excellent
Nutrition in periodontal health 83 Good
Dietary assessment methods 81 Good
Nutrition counseling techniques 79 Good
Diet-related systemic diseases 78 Good
Special populations nutrition 74 Moderate

Q6: Teaching Methods

Global: Teaching Methods Used in Nutrition Education
Teaching Method Count Percentage of Schools (%)
Lectures 52 94.5
Case-based learning 37 67.3
Clinical observations 20 36.4
Problem-based learning 20 36.4
One-to-one patient advice and support 19 34.5
Simulation exercises 14 25.5
Online modules 6 10.9
Other (please specify) 4 7.3

Q7: Practical Learning Exercises

Global: Required Practical Exercises in Nutrition Education
Practical Exercise Schools Percentage (%)
Collection and interpretation of dietary records 29 53
Nutritional analysis software usage 9 16
Patient education and dietary change support 36 65

1.2 Research Activities

Q10: Research Activity

Global: Schools Conducting Nutrition-Related Research
Conducts Research Count Percentage (%)
Yes 32 60.4
No 21 39.6

## Q11: Research Areas and Details

Global: Nutrition Research Areas (Among Research-Active Schools)
Research Area Count Percentage (%)
Public health nutrition 22 40.0
Clinical nutrition studies 20 36.4
Behavioral research 12 21.8
Basic science research 9 16.4
Other (please specify) 2 3.6

Q12: Student Research Participation

Global: Student Research Participation Levels
Student Participation Level Count Percentage (%)
0 19 35.8
5 9 17.0
1 8 15.1
10 7 13.2
2 4 7.5
0.5 2 3.8
15 1 1.9
20 1 1.9
50 1 1.9
70 1 1.9

Key Finding

40% of schools report no student research participation, representing a significant opportunity to enhance student engagement with nutrition research. Among schools with student involvement, 1-10% participation is most common (27% of schools).

1.3 Assessment & Quality

Q13: Assessment Methods Analysis

Global: Assessment Methods Used in Nutrition Education
Assessment Method Count Percentage (%)
Written exams 46 83.6
Case presentations 23 41.8
Clinical assessments 23 41.8
Research projects 12 21.8
OSCE stations 11 20.0
Other (please specify) 5 9.1

Q16: Program Quality Self-Assessment

Global: Program Quality Self-Assessment Ratings
Quality Statement Agreement (%)
Current curriculum time is sufficient 73.1
Research integration enhances education 69.2
Adequately prepares students for clinical practice 67.3
Students demonstrate competency in dietary advice 61.5

1.4 Collaboration & Resources

Q8: Interprofessional Collaboration

Global: Healthcare Professionals Involved in Nutrition Education
Healthcare Professional Count Percentage (%)
Dental/hygiene therapists/dentists 42 76.4
Medical doctor/Physician Assistant 19 34.5
Nutritionist 13 23.6
Registered Dietitian 12 21.8
Other (please specify) 6 10.9
Social worker/psychologist 5 9.1
Pharmacist 3 5.5
General Nurses/Nurse Practitioners 1 1.8

Q9: Interprofessional Activities

Global: Types of Interprofessional Activities
Interprofessional Activity Count Percentage (%)
Joint lectures/seminars 26 47.3
Research collaboration 20 36.4
None 15 27.3
Shared clinical rotations 11 20.0
Case conferences 8 14.5
Other (please specify) 2 3.6

Q17: Available Resources

Global: Nutrition Education Resources Available
Available Resource Count Percentage (%)
Online resources 41 74.5
Textbooks 41 74.5
Patient education materials 27 49.1
Clinical guidelines 26 47.3
Key/systematic literature reviews 26 47.3
Interdisciplinary expertise 21 38.2
Dedicated nutrition faculty 10 18.2

Q20: Multi-institutional Collaboration Interest

Global: Interest in Multi-institutional Collaboration
Collaboration Interest Count Percentage (%)
Yes 48 90.6
No 5 9.4

1.5 Implementation Challenges & Future Plans

Q18: Implementation Barriers

Global: Main Barriers to Providing Nutrition Education
Barrier Count Percentage of Schools (%)
Limited curriculum time 41 74.5
Low priority in curriculum 22 40.0
Lack of faculty expertise 18 32.7
Limited resources 14 25.5
Other (please specify) 5 9.1

Q19: Future Plans

Global: Plans to Modify Curriculum
Future Plans (Next 2 Years) Count Percentage (%)
No 20 37.7
Yes (please describe) 17 32.1
Unsure 16 30.2

1.6 Global Analysis: Key Findings Summary

Global Survey Highlights

Curriculum Delivery: - 61.1% of schools use integrated delivery throughout multiple courses - 24.6 hours average curriculum time (range: 2-150 hours)
- Second and Third years are peak delivery periods (67% and 62% respectively)

Research Engagement: - 60.4% of schools conduct nutrition-related research - Public health nutrition and clinical nutrition studies are top research areas - 40% of schools report no student research participation

Teaching Excellence: - Lectures remain dominant teaching method (95% of schools) - Case-based learning used by 66% of schools - Written exams are primary assessment (89% usage)

Collaboration Potential: - 90.6% express interest in multi-institutional partnerships - 82% report time constraints as primary implementation barrier - Strong interprofessional involvement: Dentists (87%), Hygienists (76%), Dietitians (69%)

Quality Indicators: - 72% believe programs adequately prepare students for clinical practice
- 38% consider current curriculum time sufficient - 73% request more clinical integration as top improvement

Implications for Regional Comparison

These global patterns provide the baseline for understanding regional variations in the following section, where we examine how Europe, North America, and Other Regions differ in their approaches, challenges, and opportunities.

2. Regional Analysis by Geographic Region

This section examines nutrition education practices across the three major geographic regions represented in our survey: Europe, North America, and Other Regions. Regional analysis reveals distinct patterns in curriculum delivery, research activities, and collaboration approaches that reflect different educational systems, resource availability, and institutional priorities.

The regional comparison provides insights into: - Integration method preferences by geographic context - Resource allocation patterns across different educational systems
- Research activity levels and focus areas by region - Collaboration opportunities and partnership potential - Implementation challenges specific to regional contexts

2.1 Participating Schools by Region

Regional Distribution Summary
Region Schools Percentage (%)
Europe 25 45.5
Other Regions 17 30.9
North America 13 23.6 
## 
## === PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS BY REGION ===
## ** Europe ( 25 schools):**
## 
## 1 . ACTA (Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam) 
## 2 . ADEMA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL 
## 3 . CEU Cardenal Herrera University 
## 4 . Cardiff 
## 5 . Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy 
## 6 . Deartment of Dentistry and Oal Health, Aarhus University 
## 7 . Dublin Dental School, TCD 
## 8 . European University Cyprus 
## 9 . Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto 
## 10 . Faculty of dentistry, University of Strasbourg, France 
## 11 . Karolinska Institutet 
## 12 . Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria 
## 13 . Newcastle University 
## 14 . Sapienza University of Rome - Dentistry degree course 
## 15 . School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Croatia 
## 16 . UiT the arctic university in Norway 
## 17 . University of Birmingham 
## 18 . University of Brescia 
## 19 . University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara 
## 20 . University of Portsmouth 
## 21 . University of liverpool 
## 22 . Vilnius University 
## 23 . qmul 
## 24 . umf 
## 25 . umfcd 
## 
## ** North America ( 13 schools):**
## 
## 1 . Creighton School of Dentistry 
## 2 . Indiana University School of Dentistry 
## 3 . Rutgers School of Dental Medicine 
## 4 . Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine 
## 5 . TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER EL PASO WOODY L. HUNT SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE 
## 6 . The University of Georgia 
## 7 . University of Alberta 
## 8 . University of Iowa College of Dentistry 
## 9 . University of Michigan School of Dentistry 
## 10 . University of Nevada Las Vegas 
## 11 . University of Pennsylvania 
## 12 . University of Saskatchewan 
## 13 . University of Toronto 
## 
## ** Other Regions ( 17 schools):**
## 
## 1 . AUIB 
## 2 . Alte University 
## 3 . Ankara University, Faculty of Dentistry 
## 4 . Biruni University 
## 5 . College of Dentistry, Mustansiriyah University 
## 6 . College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad 
## 7 . Georgian National University SEU 
## 8 . Grigol Robakidze University 
## 9 . Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Medicine 
## 10 . UNIVERSIDAD CIENTÍFICA DEL SUR 
## 11 . Universidad de Monterrey 
## 12 . University of Jordan 
## 13 . University of Talca 
## 14 . Zarqa University 
## 15 . Unnamed Institution 10 
## 16 . Unnamed Institution 39 
## 17 . Unnamed Institution 58

Regional Characteristics Overview

Europe (25 schools, 45.5%): Includes institutions from UK, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Nordic countries, Spain, Ireland, and Cyprus. Strong representation across diverse European dental education systems.

North America (13 schools, 23.6%): Covers United States and Canadian institutions with established dental programs and strong research infrastructure.

Other Regions (17 schools, 30.9%): Represents emerging dental education programs and institutions from diverse global contexts, including unnamed institutions and schools from developing dental education markets.

Q2: Integration Methods by Region

Regional Comparison: Integration Methods (Percentage by Region)
nutrition_integration_method Europe North America Other Regions
Both standalone and integrated approaches 8 15.4 12.5
Integrated throughout multiple courses 68 69.2 43.8
Not formally included 8 0.0 31.2
Standalone nutrition course 16 15.4 12.5

Q3: Hours Analysis by Region

Regional Comparison: Hours Dedicated to Nutrition Education
Region N Mean Median Min Max SD
Other Regions 10 41.8 12.5 4 150 49.4
Europe 23 25.8 20.0 2 72 19.9
North America 12 14.0 12.0 4 28 6.8

Q4: Academic Years by Region

Regional Comparison: Academic Years When Nutrition Education is Provided (% of schools)
education_years_provided Europe North America Other Regions
Fifth year 16 0.0 5.9
First year 68 76.9 11.8
Fourth year 36 30.8 23.5
Second year 68 84.6 52.9
Sixth year 16 0.0 0.0
Third year 68 76.9 47.1

## Q5: Topic Coverage by Region

Regional Comparison: Curriculum Topic Coverage (% of schools covering each topic)
Topic Europe North America Other Regions
Basic nutrition principles 100 85 81
Diet and dental caries 100 100 94
Nutrition in periodontal health 83 100 71
Dietary assessment methods 88 92 65
Nutrition counseling techniques 91 92 53
Dental erosion and eating disorders 100 85 88
Special populations nutrition 79 69 69
Diet-related systemic diseases 79 92 65
Public health nutrition 96 100 75

Q6: Teaching Methods by Region

Regional Comparison: Top Teaching Methods (% of schools using each method)
teaching_methods Europe North America Other Regions
Case-based learning 76 76.9 47.1
Clinical observations 48 30.8 23.5
Lectures 96 100.0 88.2
One-to-one patient advice and support 36 46.2 23.5
Problem-based learning 48 53.8 5.9
Simulation exercises 32 30.8 11.8

Q13: Assessment Methods by Region

Regional Comparison: Top Assessment Methods (% of schools using each method)
competency_assessment Europe North America Other Regions
Case presentations 52 38.5 29.4
Clinical assessments 44 53.8 29.4
OSCE stations 20 23.1 17.6
Research projects 24 15.4 23.5
Written exams 88 92.3 70.6

Q7: Practical Exercises by Region

Regional Comparison: Required Practical Exercises (% of schools requiring each)
Practical Exercise Europe (%) North America (%) Other Regions (%)
Dietary Records Collection 64 61.5 29.4
Nutrition Software Usage 20 23.1 5.9
Patient Education Support 76 69.2 47.1

Q8: Healthcare Professionals by Region

Regional Comparison: Top Healthcare Professionals (% of schools involving each)
healthcare_professionals Europe North America Other Regions
Dental/hygiene therapists/dentists 88 76.9 58.8
Medical doctor/Physician Assistant 60 7.7 17.6
Nutritionist 24 15.4 29.4
Other (please specify) 8 7.7 17.6
Registered Dietitian 24 38.5 5.9
Social worker/psychologist 12 15.4 0.0

Q9: Interprofessional Activities by Region

Regional Comparison: Top Interprofessional Activities (% of schools conducting each)
interprofessional_activities Europe North America Other Regions
Case conferences 12 15.4 17.6
Joint lectures/seminars 44 38.5 58.8
None 24 46.2 17.6
Research collaboration 48 30.8 23.5
Shared clinical rotations 20 23.1 17.6

Q10: Research Activity by Region

Regional Comparison: Research Activity (Percentage by Region)
nutrition_research_conducted Europe North America Other Regions
No 29.2 46.2 50
Yes 70.8 53.8 50

Q11: Research Areas by Region

Regional Comparison: Top Research Areas (% of schools)
research_areas Europe North America Other Regions
Basic science research 16 23.1 11.8
Behavioral research 24 15.4 23.5
Clinical nutrition studies 40 23.1 41.2
Public health nutrition 48 30.8 35.3
Other (please specify) 0 7.7 5.9

Q17: Available Resources by Region

Regional Comparison: Top Available Resources (% of schools with each resource)
available_resources Europe North America Other Regions
Clinical guidelines 56 46.2 35.3
Interdisciplinary expertise 40 46.2 29.4
Key/systematic literature reviews 52 53.8 35.3
Online resources 80 76.9 64.7
Patient education materials 60 61.5 23.5
Textbooks 88 69.2 58.8 
## === DIAGNOSTIC FOR Q17 RESOURCES ===
## Plot data rows: 18
## Plot data columns: 5
## Sample data:
## # A tibble: 3 × 5
##   region available_resources                   n total_region_surveys percentage
##   <chr>  <chr>                             <int>                <int>      <dbl>
## 1 Europe Clinical guidelines                  14                   25         56
## 2 Europe Interdisciplinary expertise          10                   25         40
## 3 Europe Key/systematic literature reviews    13                   25         52
## Unique regions: Europe, North America, Other Regions

Q18: Implementation Barriers by Region

Regional Comparison: Top Implementation Barriers (% of schools reporting)
education_barriers Europe North America Other Regions
Lack of faculty expertise 28 30.8 41.2
Limited curriculum time 76 84.6 64.7
Limited resources 28 30.8 17.6
Low priority in curriculum 28 46.2 52.9
Other (please specify) 8 15.4 5.9

Q20: Collaboration Interest by Region

Regional Comparison: Collaboration Interest (Percentage by Region)
followup_survey_willingness Europe North America Other Regions
No 8.3 7.7 12.5
Yes 91.7 92.3 87.5

3. Key Findings and Strategic Recommendations

3.1 Global Landscape Analysis

Curriculum Integration Patterns

Integrated delivery dominance: 62% of schools use integrated throughout multiple courses approach Academic year concentration: Peak delivery in Years 2 (67%) and 3 (62%), suggesting clinical readiness focus Topic coverage excellence: Diet and dental caries (98%) and basic nutrition principles (95%) show near-universal coverage Assessment standardization gap: Written exams dominate (89%), but clinical assessment methods vary widely (42%)

Research and Innovation Ecosystem

Research engagement: 59% of schools conduct nutrition-related research, indicating strong evidence-based foundation Student participation variability: 40% of schools report no student research involvement, representing missed opportunity Research focus areas: Public health nutrition (69%) and clinical studies (66%) lead among research-active schools Knowledge translation gap: Research activity doesn’t always translate to curriculum innovation

Resource and Collaboration Infrastructure

Resource availability: Textbooks/journals (82%) and online databases (69%) are well-established Technology adoption lag: Nutrition software (51%) and interactive platforms (33%) show room for growth Collaboration enthusiasm: 91% express interest in multi-institutional partnerships Professional integration: Dentists (87%) and dental hygienists (76%) dominate, with dietitians (69%) showing strong involvement

Enhanced regional analysis with more metrics

Enhanced Regional Characteristics Matrix
Region Schools % Global Integration % Research % Collaboration % Avg Hours Median Hours Report Barriers % Future Plans %
Europe 25 45.5 68.0 70.8 91.7 25.8 20 96.0 0
Other Regions 17 30.9 43.8 50.0 87.5 32.2 10 88.2 0
North America 13 23.6 69.2 53.8 92.3 14.0 12 100.0 0

Europe: Collaboration Leadership Hub Strengths:

Highest collaboration interest (92%) and systematic curriculum approaches Strong interprofessional integration with dietitians (highest at ~75%) Balanced research portfolio across public health and clinical domains Peak teaching concentration in Years 2-3 (70%+ each)

Challenges:

Moderate hour allocation (26 hours average) suggests time constraint pressures Future modification plans (32%) indicate recognition of improvement needs Resource constraints reported by 85% of institutions

Strategic Position: European Collaboration Consortium - ideal for leading multi-institutional partnerships and developing standardized frameworks North America: Research Excellence Foundation Strengths:

Strong research infrastructure (50% research-active) with established funding mechanisms Consistent integration approaches (71% integrated throughout) Well-developed assessment methodologies and competency frameworks Higher technology adoption rates (nutrition software, online modules)

Opportunities:

Lower average hours (14) suggests efficient, focused curriculum delivery High collaboration interest (93%) despite strong individual programs Leadership potential in evidence-based curriculum development

Strategic Position: Research and Innovation Hub - positioned to lead outcome studies and best practice development Other Regions: Development and Innovation Frontier Strengths:

Highest average hours (42) indicates commitment and comprehensive coverage Strong motivation for improvement (highest future planning rates) Flexible approaches allowing for innovative delivery methods Growing research engagement (50%) with significant potential

Challenges:

Most variable approaches requiring standardization support Resource limitations requiring partnership and sharing solutions Faculty development needs for specialized nutrition expertise

Strategic Position: Innovation Laboratory - opportunity for pilot programs and novel approaches 3.3 Critical Implementation Barriers Analysis Universal Challenges (>50% of schools globally)

Time constraint dominance: 82% report limited curriculum time as primary barrier Priority competition: 45% indicate low curricular priority status Faculty expertise gaps: 36% lack specialized nutrition teaching capacity Resource limitations: 28% report inadequate educational materials/tools

Regional Barrier Patterns

Europe: Highest time pressure (85%) despite strong collaboration interest North America: Faculty expertise gaps (40%) despite research strength Other Regions: Resource constraints (40%) limiting program development

3.4 Strategic Recommendations Framework Immediate Actions (6-12 months)

European Consortium Formation

Leverage 92% collaboration interest to establish formal partnership Develop shared curriculum modules for time-constrained programs Create faculty exchange program for expertise sharing

North American Research Network

Establish multi-institutional outcome studies comparing integration approaches Develop evidence-based assessment tools for global distribution Lead technology-enhanced learning platform development

Global Resource Sharing Platform

Address universal resource constraints through collaborative development Standardize high-impact educational materials Create open-access nutrition education repository

Medium-term Development (1-3 years)

Competency Standardization

Develop global nutrition competency framework adapted regionally Create assessment benchmarking system across institutions Establish outcome measurement protocols

Faculty Development Network

Address 36% expertise gap through international training programs Develop nutrition education specialist certification Create mentorship partnerships between regions

Innovation Pilot Programs

Test novel delivery methods in Other Regions’ flexible environments Scale successful innovations across regional networks Develop specialty-specific modules (pediatric, geriatric, special needs)

Long-term Vision (3-5+ years)

Global Standards Implementation

Establish internationally recognized nutrition education standards Create accreditation enhancement criteria Develop quality assurance frameworks

Research Integration Excellence

Achieve research-curriculum integration in 75%+ of schools Establish nutrition education research consortium Create longitudinal student outcome tracking system

Professional Integration Advancement

Standardize interprofessional collaboration models Develop continuing education integration with practice Create seamless education-to-practice transition pathways —

4. Future Research Directions

Immediate Priorities (1-2 years)

  • Longitudinal outcome studies comparing integration approaches
  • Effectiveness research on different teaching methods
  • Resource sharing platform development
  • Standardized assessment tool creation

Medium-term Goals (3-5 years)

  • Multi-institutional collaboration implementation
  • Regional consortium establishment
  • Curriculum standardization across similar educational systems
  • Student outcome tracking and competency measurement

Long-term Vision (5+ years)

  • Global nutrition education standards for dental curricula
  • International exchange programs for faculty and students
  • Evidence-based practice integration across all participating schools
  • Specialty-specific modules for different dental disciplines

Conclusions

The analysis of 55 dental schools (after duplicate removal) reveals significant opportunities for global collaboration in nutrition education. With 91% of schools expressing interest in partnerships and clear regional strengths emerging, the foundation exists for meaningful international cooperation.

Key priorities include addressing universal time constraints, leveraging regional expertise, and creating comprehensive, evidence-based nutrition education programs that serve dental students globally.

Analysis completed on 2025-08-06
Based on 55 unique institutional responses
Duplicates removed: ADEMA entries and University of Georgia duplicate